LC loii 



5 








SHOULD LATIN AND GREEK BE REQUIRED 

FOE THE 

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS. 



By 

Professor John J. Stevenson. 



Beprinted from Science, N. S., Vol. XL, No. $82, Pages 801-807 
May 25, 1900. 






i 



By transfer 
NOV 1 1905 

to- 2. 



k^,^£^^/\^^ 



iBeprinted from SCIENCE, N. S., Vol. XL, No. 28^, 
Pages 801-807, May 25, 1900.'] 



SHOULD LATLN AND GREEK BE EEQULBED 

FOB IHE DEGREE OF BACHELOR 

OF ABTSf 

The removal of Latin from the curricu- 
lum required for A. B. by another promi- 
nent university has re-opened discussion 
respecting the relative worth of classical 
and other studies. The discussion is con- 
ducted much in the same manner as of old 
and disputants on both sides frequently 
show irritation when the opposing opinion 
is expressed. They seem to regard the 
matter as so thoroughly settled that all 
doubts can be disposed of by a wave of the 
hand. But the matters involved deserve 
very different treatment from this. There 
must be something worth considering on 
both sides, otherwise intelligent men would 
not be ranged in opposing., camps. The 
writer will endeaver to present one side of 
the case. ^ ' • • * . 

One point should be noted at the outset. 
It must be evident to those who have fol- 
lowed the discussion during late years that 
the contestants are not equally competent 
to render judgment. Most of those who re- 
sist encroachment upon territory, held so 
long by the older system, and who deny 
that inductive sciences can be Xitilized as 
culture studies are unfamiliar with science 
and cannot distinguish between pure and 
applied science. Their reading has been 
determined by their college training, or 
their studies have been confined within 
somewhat narrow limits by professional 
surroundings. Their knowledge of chem- 



istry and physics is bounded by the curric- 
ulum of thirty or more years ago in the 
larger colleges or by that of some of the 
younger institutions with limited resources; 
while their knowledge of biology, geology 
and modern psychology has been derived 
from magazine articles, popular summaries 
or from controversial works of not wholly 
friendly character. 

American workers in pure science, who 
have passed middle age were trained, with 
few exceptions, in the studies of the old 
curriculum, so that they understand thor- 
oughly its nature and its advantages. But 
the exigencies of their work have compelled 
them to recognize the deficiencies also. The 
great majority of those laboring in pure 
science have a working knowledge of 
French, German, and Italian and many add 
Spanish and Russian ; some require in ad- 
dition a good knowledge of the oriental 
languages as well as of numerous dialects 
— in every case a knowledge much more 
exact than the knowledge of Greek and 
Latin possessed by the ordinary college 
graduate ; and all of this merely as prepa- 
ration for their work. Such study neces- 
sarily brings men into touch with a great 
range of knowledge, so that, especially 
among naturalists, many are well read in 
various branches of philosophy and almost 
all have a broad acquaintance with litera- 
ture. These are the men who assert delib- 
erately that the older system of education 
is a survival of conditions which men have 
outgrown and that it is no longer fitted to 
our needs. 

In one sense, education, as training, is an 
end in itself, being a course in mental gym- 
nastics ; but in the true sense it is far more, 



embracing not merely mental training but 
also the imparting of knowledge. 

In another place, the writer likened the 
college course to emery used in polishing 
metal and held that, as one has no concern 
for the emery after the metal has been pol- 
ished, so, if the youth be developed, it mat- 
ters little whether or not his college studies 
disappear from memory. But this is a 
narrow view, regarding mere training as 
the single end, not considering that this 
strengthening, developing process consumes 
the years when the power of acquiring and 
that of retention are most ef&cient. Those 
years ought not to be expended in training 
to the exclusion of learning. Youth in 
America is shorter now than formerly ; 
manhood's responsibilities come earlier and 
are heavier; one cannot ignore the utili- 
tarian side of education — utilitarian, not in 
the sense of dollars and cents but in that of 
preparing the man for usefulness. There 
should be more than mere robustness to 
show for the labor of the early years, some 
capital should be accumulated with which 
to utilize the robustness. 

Study of classical tongues retained its very 
prominent place in college curricula long 
after necessity for it disappeared. Until 
little more than one hundred years ago, 
classical languages were studied for use — 
the study was as purely utilitarian in pur- 
pose as is that of the Calculus to-day- 
Latin, as the language of the mediaeval 
church, was the language of educated men 
until the latter part of the eighteenth cen- 
tury ; university lectures were delivered in 
Latin ; scientific, theological and philo- 
sophical works were written in it. At the 
revival of learning, the sources of knowledge 



were classical and early Christian writers : 
to reach them, acquaintance with Greek and 
Latin was essential ; those tongues were 
learned by students at that time as anatomy 
is learned by the medical student of our 
time and for the same reason. There were 
but two learned professions, Law and The- 
ology, with Medicine as a coming third. 
Education was for the few, to enable them 
to enter a profession, not to develop them, 
not to render them useful. Educated men 
could not touch commerce — that was degra- 
dation. But education now is for all, for 
the poor as for the rich, for the merchant as 
for the professional man ; we recognize that 
the professional man ranks no higher intel- 
lectually than does the financier, whether 
the latter deal in money or in goods. This 
absolute reversal of conditions cannot be 
ignored in the discussion. 

When men threw off the bonds of the 
mediaeval church, the study of things re- 
placed that of words ; men discovered 
themselves and the great world about them. 
As knowledge increased, respect for the 
dicta of ancient writers decreased ; Latin 
and Greek fell into disuse and at length 
necessity for acquaintance with them dis- 
appeared. But the curricula had become 
hoary with age ; change meant revolution ; 
the universities were controlled by men 
who knew no other training and the promi- 
nent instructors in almost all branches be- 
longed to the clerical profession. Those 
investigating material things were spoken 
of disdainfully ; even those studying the 
physical portion of man received little 
respect from those who studied his mental 
and spiritual portion — their work was re- 
ferred to patronizingly as requiring less 



intellectual power than that of their critics 
— a reflection not wholly unknown in our 
time, for there are still those who appear 
to think that familiarity with material 
things unfits a man for taking the higher 
flights of philosophical reasoning. Th-ere 
may be something in this reflection, for a 
knowledge of facts cannot fail to fetter the 
wings of a philosopher of the old type. 

When classical study ceased to be neces- 
sary from the utilitarian standpoint, those 
entrusted with educational work discovered 
that it was still necessary from an educa- 
tional standpoint. Verily necessity is the 
mother of invention. Necessity increased 
with years and for the last half century 
men have been seeking excuses for reten- 
tion of compulsory classical study. They 
have succeeded in convincing those who 
know little about either classics or science 
that without such a smattering of the clas- 
sics as the college man usually receives, no 
one can be regarded as educated. 

The change in purpose brought about a 
change in the teaching, so that classical in- 
struction, as commonly conducted in secon- 
dary schools, leads a youth along an in- 
vestigation of grammatical principles. The 
great majority of young men, who enter 
college after four to six years of prepara- 
tion, find themselves so burdened by lexi- 
con work that too many of them seek relief 
in the convenient ' Bohn.' Acquisition of 
the vocabulary seems to be less important 
than mastery of nice points in syntax. An 
eminent instructor in Latin told the writer 
that in marking students he laid little 
stress on translation, as a '■ Bohn ' is always 
available ; his grading was based on pro- 
ficiency in prose and quantity which had 



to be studied. That a large proportion of 
Bachelors, after ten years of study, cannot 
read their diplomas without resort to a 
lexicon causes no surprise to them or to 
their instructors. They had not been at- 
tempting to acquire either Latin or Greek, 
but they had been utilizing classical words 
and idioms in studying the principles of 
grammar. True it is, that this statement 
is not of universal application ; there are 
exceptions among both instructors and stu- 
dents and, owing to the demand that there 
be something tangible to show for the labor 
of years, the number is increasing ; but the 
fact remains that the conditions as described 
are those which prevail ; and they have 
much to do with the notion that the study 
of classical languages is much more diffi- 
cult than that of other languages. 

But one asks, suppose that the young 
man has acquired an accurate knowledge 
of, let us say, Latin, that he can read, write 
and speak it, has he gained nothing? He 
has gained much, he has learned accuracy 
in expression; a certain discrimination in 
the use of terms ; he has cultivated his 
memory ; he has become acquainted with 
the tongue in which men of Eome expressed 
their thoughts ; in which many theologians 
of the early centuries expressed their con- 
ceptions of what Cliristianity ought to be ; 
in which theologians of later centuries ex- 
pressed their conceptions and misconcep- 
tions of what the Fathers wrote ; the lan- 
guage of educated men until a little more 
than one hundred years ago. Thus he has 
acquired, first, a sharpening of certain fac- 
ulties and, secondly, the means which give 
direct access to a great literature represent- 
ing in time more than two milleniums pre- 
ceding our century. 



This much he has acquired and it cer- 
tainly is a great deal. Those who defend 
the necessity for classical training assert 
that he has acquired much more if he be an 
English-speaking student. It is said that 
one has a better understanding of his own 
tongue if he have a good knowledge of the 
classics, since so much of our language is 
derived from the Greek and Latin. Shakes- 
peare, we are told, enriched our vocabulary 
by the addition of not less than three thous- 
and words. 

Much is made of this, but one may doubt 
the importance of the reasoning. Words 
are available when they become identified 
with things either material or abstract, so 
that one's ability to use them with precision 
depends upon the exactness of the identifi- 
cation. The question of their origin does 
not enter into the matter. Indeed, one too 
fully imbued with the signification of par- 
ent-words may employ derived words in 
senses at variance with accepted significa- 
tions. If there be any force in the argu- 
ment, it would apply rather to a course in 
Anglo-Saxon or in the language of the Au- 
thorized Version, if the object be to culti- 
vate a direct style. That Shakespeare's 
works enriched the English vocabulary ad- 
mits of no doubt ; but if Shakespeare wrote 
his plays, the argument gains little strength 
by reference to him, for, according to Ben 
Jonson, he knew 'little Latin and less 
Greek.' In any event, however, this is a 
matter of no importance. The suggestion 
that our language is in urgent need of fur- 
ther enrichment can hardly commend itself 
as wise in view of the fact that the lexi- 
cons already boast of approximately three 
hundred thousand words, while the vocab- 



alary of the metropolitan newspaper does 
not exceed three thousand and that of great 
writers rarely equals ten thousand. 

But conceding all that has been conceded 
30 willingly because true, the query persist- 
ently comes : Is the profit in due propor- 
tion to the expenditure in time and labor ? 
Might not the mental discipline be acquired 
equally well by the use of other languages, 
which would open a wider field of knowl- 
edge and render the man more useful to 
himself and to his fellows? 

The modernized courses pay too little at- 
tention to instruction in the use of lan- 
guage. The literary courses are better 
than the older types in that they do not ex- 
clude the English language and proper 
training in that direction is not far awaj' ; 
but the defect is still too conspicuous, espe- 
cially in the scientific courses. Laboratory 
work leads to exactness in method ; field- 
work gives precision in observation and 
comparison ; scientific training, in general, 
strengthens the logical powers and gives 
precision in thinking; but none of them 
gives precision in expression. As in theo- 
logical seminaries, too often, preparation 
for preaching is neglected on the principle 
that if a man has anything to say he will 
find no difficulty in saying it, so the study 
of language as a means of expressing one's 
thoughts has been neglected in scientific 
training. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to 
recognize that the writings of scientific 
men compare, at least, favorablj' with the 
writings of those who have had the great 
advantage of classical training, that is to 
say, of the average clergymen and lawyer, 
those who plead so urgently for retention 
of the system from which they have re- 



9 

ceived sucli abundant profit. Brilliant 
rhetoricians cannot be taken as examples 
of wbat the training can do— in the intel- 
lectual as in the vegetable world, the aver- 
age of the fruitage, not the choicest selec- 
tions, must be taken as type of the product. 
And one must not forget that the soil in 
which seed is planted has much to do with 
the crop. 

But the remedy for this defect in modern 
training is very simple, and its application 
involves no material change in plan. 

The advantages derived from education 
according to the old system do not come 
from the study of Latin and Greek any 
more than they would come from the study 
of French, Hebrew or any other language. 
The results are due to the method, not in 
any sense to the particular language em- 
ployed. One may say, better, that the re- 
sult is due rather to skill in applying the 
method, for classical teaching is very dif- 
ferent to-day from that of the older day, 
when pupils were plunged in medias res 
at the outset. The Arnoldian method is 
not so far removed from the Ollendorfian 
as a casual observer might imagine. Why 
then do we hear the constant claim for the 
advantage of classical teaching ? 

The reason is found in conditions still 
existing in our secondary schools. There, 
the ablest teachers have always been those 
in classics, though increasing requirements 
for college entrance have led in many 
instances to the selection of strong men 
for mathematics. Until very recently, the 
study of English has been perfunctory, 
while, for the most part, French and Ger- 
man have been taught by ' natives ' be- 
cause they alone can give the ' proper 



10 

pronunciation.' But those excellent men, 
though efficient teachers for pupils willing 
to learn, too often fail as disciplinarians 
and have to pay more attention to quieting 
disorder than to imparting knowledge. 
Here must be made the change needed to 
remedy the defect in our modern system. 
Men must be employed, who can teach the 
modern languages as Latin and Greek were 
taught seventy-five years ago, when the 
pupil acquired not merely a fairly accurate 
knowledge of grammatical principles, but 
also the language itself. Our colleges must 
demand more thorough preparation in 
modern languages — in other words, the 
transformation which college courses have 
undergone must reach into the secondary 
schools. Able men occupy modern language 
chairs in colleges ; able teachers must be 
found to prepare students. 

But some may feel that while a modern 
language course may be as useful mental 
training as is a classical course, still there 
may be room for doubt whether or not he 
has gained equal preparation for his life's 
work. 

If the end to be attained by classical 
study, beyond mere discipline, is the ability 
to read the works of those who wrote in 
classical languages, surely the labor has 
been that of supererogation, for practically 
all that is good in the ancient languages, 
whether theological or legal or literary, has 
been done into English after a fashion many 
times better than that of the amateur — and 
the reading in English will be vastly more 
profita,ble than that in the original, for 
one's contemplation of lofty sentiments or 
useful matter is not likely to be interrupt- 
ed by struggles with difficult construction. 



11 

This argument is treated with such con- 
tempt by advocates of elaborate classical 
study that one is inclined to regard it as 
unanswerable. It is said, however, that 
the true meaning of an author cannot be 
ascertained from a translation, the work 
must be read in the original — which is 
equivalent to saying that, to most of us, 
works in a foreign language, especially 
those in a dead language, must remain 
sealed books. No man can acquire a 
knowledge of a dead language, so exact as 
to enable him to think in it, without ex- 
pending so much labor as to leave time for 
little else, so that to most of us a concep- 
tion of what the writers meant must come 
through translation. 

But we may dismiss this last argument, 
for it is purely academic and has no refer- 
ence to the actual condition. It is not pre- 
tended that the ordinary college graduate 
knows enough to make the reading of Latin 
or Greek authors a delight in hours of re- 
laxation from the burdens of everyday life. 
Long ago, Latin text-books were abandoned 
in theological seminaries, not so much be- 
cause the theology was antiquated as be- 
cause the students were so burdened by 
translation that neither time nor energy 
remained for study of the matter. 

But granting all that is claimed, the 
question still recurs, is the game worth the 
candle? Is access to classical authors in 
the original or even in translation a matter 
of such importance to the average man as 
to justify the expenditure of the most im- 
portant years of his life? One cannot 
avoid expressing some doubts respecting 
this. Unquestionably, the men of classical 
Greece and Rome were, in some instances, 



12 

men of towering intellect ; those who wor- 
ship at the classical shrine demand that we 
point out in modern times the equals of 
Aristotle, Homer, Thucydides, Plato, Sen- 
eca, Vergil, Tacitus, Horace, Quintilian 
and half a score of others. Where in mod- 
ern literature, we are asked, can one find 
such elevating sentiments, such ennobling 
philosophy, such brilliant rhetoric? One 
may reply that perspective has much to do 
with this type of ancestor worship, that a 
score or even two scores of names gathered 
from more than a millenium of antiquity 
could easily be matched by a score of names 
gathered from the five centuries preceding 
our own. Even our nineteenth century, 
whose materialism grieves so many hearts, 
does not pale in comparison with the golden 
period of either Greece or Rome. Men do 
not stand out pre-eminently now as they 
did centuries ago, for the field of knowledge 
is so wide and the laborers so numerous 
that one may gain eminence only with great 
difficulty in even a very contracted portion. 
Pre-eminent in his own area, he may be 
utterly unknown to workers elsewhere. 
It is probable that the ablest astronomer 
in America cannot name the most eminent 
ten chemists in the world and, in like man- 
ner, that the ablest chemist cannot name 
the most eminent ten astronomers. It is 
equally probable that no eminent philoso- 
pher or historian in this country can name 
the ten Americans who have been pre- 
eminent in the several branches of science 
during the last fifty years. If Aristotle 
were living now, he would be an eminent 
professor of philosophy in some university, 
much respected by philosophers elsewhere, 
but unknown outside of his immediate cir- 



13 

cle, unless, like Herbert Spencer, lie should 
undertake problems of broad type, in wbicb 
case, no doubt, he would be as little read 
and as much misrepresented as Spencer 
himself. 

Of course, one risks much in venturing 
to question the over-towering grandeur of 
the ancient writers, for their names have 
been enshrined so long that doubts respect- 
ing their superiority appear as sacrilegious 
as were Galileo's doubts respecting the 
Ptolemaic system. But the fact remains, 
that the commonly accepted verdict in 
favor of the ancient writers is not that of 
our day — it was pronounced at the revival 
of learning amid the shadows of the reced- 
ing dark ages and it has become a tradition 
in seats of learning to be guarded carefully 
as a pillar of the intellectual universe. 

But the student, who has a thorough 
knowledge of French and German as well 
as of his own language, still has access 
through translations to the thoughts of 
antiquity, while he has vastly more. He 
has access to the best thoughts of modern 
times, to the works of authors in all 
branches of knowledge during this, the age 
not only of greatest intellectual activity 
but also of the most accurate investigation. 
If he be a professional man, he can keep 
himself abreast with advance ; if he have 
turned aside to commerce, he finds himself 
equipped for the broader fields ; in any case 
without early training in those languages, 
he is crippled and is compelled to learn 
them amid the pressure of other duties. 
Those languages he must know — without 
them, he cannot gain admission to graduate 
schools of our stronger universities. They 
are as essential as was Latin a century ago 



14 

and for the same reason — they are, so ta 
opeak the tools of trade. In philosophy, 
law, theology and the various branches of 
science, a man is at more than serious dis- 
advantage without them. 

In all this, there is no denial that a 
knowledge of Greek and Latin is useful j 
but that is whollj' aside from the issue, 
which is, whether the gains from the study 
of classical languages are such as to justify 
the demand that it retain the very promi- 
nent place in the curriculum. The utility 
of some acquaintance with Latin and Greek 
is beyond dispute ; naturalists employ terms 
derived from those languages ; astronomers 
and chemists make heavy drafts on mythol- 
ogy, while relics of old practice in law and 
medicine remain embalmed in Latin terms 
and phrases. But the knowledge of Greek 
and Latin necessary to the physician, 
clergyman or lawyer is not great in quan- 
tity ; if it were, most of the college graduates 
who have taken up those professions would 
feel themselves sadly handicapped. Indeed, 
a ' smattering ' is all that very many en- 
ergetic writers demand. 

Elementary courses in Hebrew, Arabic, 
Assj'rian, Italian and Spanish are given in 
all of our larger institutions and, in manj', 
the opportunity is still afforded for the be- 
ginner in French and German. Similar 
courses, as options, ought to be offered in 
Latin and Greek, planned to give a good 
knowledge of the vocabulary and to ac- 
quaint the student with that something, 
which we are accustomed to call the ' gen- 
ius ' of the language. A faithful student, 
with an object in view, should be able in 
two years to read, with comparative ease, 
any ordinary work in either of those Ian- 



15 

•guages. Certainly, no one will assert that 
Latin and Greek are more difi&cult than 
German or that the idioms are more per- 
plexing than those of Spanish. Scientific 
men understand this, for there are doubt- 
less few who have not been compelled to 
acquire at short notice a working knowl- 
edge of an additional language in order to 
prosecute an investigation already begun. 

When our college curricula shall have 
been properly adjusted, the graduate will 
have received the polish obtained by study 
of language and literature, the logical mode 
of thought obtained by study of mathe- 
matics, the knowledge, strength and judi- 
cial tendency obtained by study of the in- 
ductive sciences ; while in addition, he will 
have the means to utilize his gains in the 
profession or calling which has been in 
view during the later years of his college 
life. 

John J. Stevenson. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
H 



020 774 469 4 



i 



